|
I've been fed up with the Republican base for a time as well but I don't see the point of voting for a third party. The way the American political system is set up it is a waste of a vote.Yeah the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors acting like Democrats with morality issues during the Bush administration. Tax and spend doesn't endear the GOP to their base, or conservative independents like myself.My dad, a lifelong Republican, pretty much gave up on the party and is looking at 3rd parties now.
Exactly, my dad and my grandpa told me that voting for a third party is the best way to see that the guy you don't want ends up winning.
You know, I have noticed a trend. Democrats seem obsessed with teh Republicans at a time when the Republicans have no power to do anything. Rather than getting their own house in order they seem obsessed with finding any Republian in any kind of elected office that have said any kind of wacko thing and then saying that the represent the whole Republian party. It doesn't make sense to me that they would focus on an impotent opponent when their own party is in such disarray.
Same deal occured when the Republicans had both Congress and the Oval Office, though. Because neither party gives a flying doughnut about fixing their own problems or improving the nation; they care only about "beating" the "other team" in the next election. A politician's job is not to serve the interests of the people or the nation, because his continued employment is not dependent upon him doing that. A politician's job, in a very real sense, is to get re-elected. Anything other than that specific goal is rather secondary.
|
You know, I have noticed a trend. Democrats seem obsessed with teh Republicans at a time when the Republicans have no power to do anything. Rather than getting their own house in order they seem obsessed with finding any Republian in any kind of elected office that have said any kind of wacko thing and then saying that the represent the whole Republian party. It doesn't make sense to me that they would focus on an impotent opponent when their own party is in such disarray.
It's just a game. When things don't go right and you're in complete control, who you going to blame? Yourself? Of course not! Blame the other guy!
Kirth's line of thought (pots and kettles) is spot on, I remember the Republicans blaming the Dems for stuff after they were crushed across the boards.
It's all a ridiculous cycle.
|
|
I've been fed up with the Republican base for a time as well but I don't see the point of voting for a third party. The way the American political system is set up it is a waste of a vote.Yeah the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors acting like Democrats with morality issues during the Bush administration. Tax and spend doesn't endear the GOP to their base, or conservative independents like myself.My dad, a lifelong Republican, pretty much gave up on the party and is looking at 3rd parties now.
It has to start somewhere, it might not be today but someday 3rd parties might be viable options. Besides, a vote for one of the Big Two is just a vote for "business as usual."
It has to start somewhere, it might not be today but someday 3rd parties might be viable options. Besides, a vote for one of the Big Two is just a vote for "business as usual."
It's ALWAYS been a 2-party system, since George Washington's 1st term, because of the way the Consititution is written -- there are no allowances for power-sharing between smaller parties. The U.S. government is not a parliamentary system.
|
|
You know, I have noticed a trend. Democrats seem obsessed with teh Republicans at a time when the Republicans have no power to do anything. Rather than getting their own house in order they seem obsessed with finding any Republian in any kind of elected office that have said any kind of wacko thing and then saying that the represent the whole Republian party. It doesn't make sense to me that they would focus on an impotent opponent when their own party is in such disarray.Same deal occured when the Republicans had both Congress and the Oval Office, though. Because neither party gives a flying doughnut about fixing their own problems or improving the nation; they care only about "beating" the "other team" in the next election.
Except that theRepublicans did not have filibuster proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming number of seats in the House. The Republican margin in the House was only a 52%-48% split andthey only had 54 seat in the Senate when they had the majority. Riht now the Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate, enough to block any filibuster attempt and they have roughly 66% of the Hous seats as well. When the Democrats were the minority they could still efectively block Republican measures, particularly in the Senate where they were constantly filibustring. The Republicans can't do anything to block Democrat measures.
David, I like you, and I've talked with you enough on the boards to know in advance you'll always have some excuse why your precious Republicans are better than those odious Democrats. Just as you know I'll always pop in and play Devil's advocate for you regardless.
|
|
It has to start somewhere, it might not be today but someday 3rd parties might be viable options. Besides, a vote for one of the Big Two is just a vote for "business as usual."It's ALWAYS been a 2-party system, since George Washington's 1st term, because of the way the Consititution is written -- there are no allowances for power-sharing between smaller parties. The U.S. government is not a parliamentary system.
We have had independents as senators, governors, mayors before, the problem is that they don't have the recognition or the party base to grow nationally. But I believe someday someone will do it.
I've been fed up with the Republican base for a time as well but I don't see the point of voting for a third party. The way the American political system is set up it is a waste of a vote.
It's a waste of a vote until enough people get fed up with the status quo and vote for a third party. So if you feel it's a waste, it's a self-fufilling prophecy. I'd like to think of it as 'voting my convictions'. I don't care whether my candidate gets in, it's not a popularity contest.
But you are right Gary, until we ditch the 'winner takes all' mentality, we will have a two-party system.
|
|
Except that theRepublicans did not have filibuster proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming number of seats in the House. The Republican margin in the House was only a 52%-48% split andthey only had 54 seat in the Senate when they had the majority. Riht now the Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate, enough to block any filibuster attempt and they have roughly 66% of the Hous seats as well. When the Democrats were the minority they could still efectively block Republican measures, particularly in the Senate where they were constantly filibustring. The Republicans can't do anything to block Democrat measures.
Let's be honest here though, the Democrats have a huge percentage of Blue Dogs in their party (the only way to win in certain red states) and many are Republican in all but name. Getting them to work with the liberals is probably go to be impossible as they both have different agendas.
But you are right Gary, until we ditch the 'winner takes all' mentality, we will have a two-party system.
It's not the mentality, it's the way the Constitution is written. If your "third party" gets big enough to get a shot at actually winning, then the 3rd place group fragments and joins you or the 2nd place team, so that they might get into office next time.
|
|
It's ALWAYS been a 2-party system, since George Washington's 1st term, because of the way the Consititution is written -- there are no allowances for power-sharing between smaller parties. The U.S. government is not a parliamentary system.
Exactly. In fact the Founders intentionally went away from a arlimentary system because they felt that it had allowed the executive in the form of the king too much control over the legislatve as represented by Parliment. Basicly they felt that the infighting that occured in the British Parliment had allowed the king to play them and use the factionalism inherent in such a system to manipulate parliment into giving him what he wanted.
Now that being said, a third party can evolve into one of the two major parties, given enough support. Oherwise we would still be choosing between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The to major parties of Jefferson and Adams time have gone on to that great pundit box in the sky, same with the Whigs. However there has to be a major movement for this to happen, much like when abolitionists felt betrayed by the Whig party and formed the Republican. Right now I dn't see that there is a cohesive unifying movement that can catapult a third party to first party status.
|
|
Except that theRepublicans did not have filibuster proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming number of seats in the House. The Republican margin in the House was only a 52%-48% split andthey only had 54 seat in the Senate when they had the majority. Riht now the Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate, enough to block any filibuster attempt and they have roughly 66% of the Hous seats as well. When the Democrats were the minority they could still efectively block Republican measures, particularly in the Senate where they were constantly filibustring. The Republicans can't do anything to block Democrat measures.Let's be honest here though, the Democrats have a huge percentage of Blue Dogs in their party (the only way to win in certain red states) and many are Republican in all but name. Getting them to work with the liberals is probably go to be impossible as they both have different agendas.
Right, which is what meant when i said that the Democrats should be putting the energy that they are spending on bashing one term members of the House and claiming the are leaders ofthe party into getting their own house in order. They keep blaiming Republicans for their failures when in fact if the Democrat party was unified the Republicans would be a moot point.
But you are right Gary, until we ditch the 'winner takes all' mentality, we will have a two-party system.It's not the mentality, it's the way the Constitution is written. If your "third party" gets big enough to get a shot at actually winning, then the 3rd place group fragments and joins you or the 2nd place team, so that they might get into office next time.
True. What I was talking about is the mentality that we must vote for a 'mainstream' party because they are the only party that can win. I understand we are not a parlimentary system, and those systems have their own problems. I am just tired of the 'waste your vote' justification that keeps the same two parties in power.
|
|
We have had independents as senators, governors, mayors before, the problem is that they don't have the recognition or the party base to grow nationally. But I believe someday someone will do it.It has to start somewhere, it might not be today but someday 3rd parties might be viable options. Besides, a vote for one of the Big Two is just a vote for "business as usual."It's ALWAYS been a 2-party system, since George Washington's 1st term, because of the way the Consititution is written -- there are no allowances for power-sharing between smaller parties. The U.S. government is not a parliamentary system.
We also have independents and even socialists (Berny Sanders from Connecticut) elected to Congress. They can win at the higest leves without a doubt. The problem is most of the smaller parties I have looked at aren't really unified, particularly Independents. In fact, lately independent has become a catch all for anyone not sociated with one of the two major parties.
However there has to be a major movement for this to happen, much like when abolitionists felt betrayed by the Whig party and formed the Republican.
Right, or the collapse of the Federalist party after the War of 1812.
|
|
David, I like you, and I've talked with you enough on the boards to know in advance you'll always have some excuse why your precious Republicans are better than those odious Democrats. Just as you know I'll always pop in and play Devil's advocate for you regardless.
I'll be honest with you, the Bush years with the way the President and Congress acted almost made me turn unaffiliated. All I'm trying to say is if the Democrat could get their house in order, at least until 2011 they would be an unstoppable juggernaut. Personlly I liked it when it split 50/50 down the middle because then nothing got done and less money as flowing out of my wallet. To praphrase the movei Wall Street, gridlock is good.
|
|
However there has to be a major movement for this to happen, much like when abolitionists felt betrayed by the Whig party and formed the Republican.Right, or the collapse of the Federalist party after the War of 1812.
Well the Federalists were in decline long before that. The party had been on life support since 1801 when Adams lost to Jefferson. Opposing the War of 1812 was just the nail in their coffin. The one exception was Delaware, which remained a Federalist stronghold until th last Federalist majority was voted out in 1832.
|
I think the best solution to the two party system would be runoff elections, but that would be a whole shift in mentality. If candidates were required to get a majority of votes, rather than a plurality, people would be less afraid to vote for alternative candidates. But, as I said, that would be a pain in the ass, and a seismic shift in American politics, not to mention a Constitutional rewrite. But one can dream...
Phantom Post
To paraphrase the movie Wall Street, gridlock is good.
Amen to that.
|
|
When I see things like this It mkes me wonder if civil and meaningful discourse really is dead.
When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.
I never found that guy even remotely amusing, but I do agree with him that there's a seriously misplaced sense of priority. First let's reduce the national debt, make some actual decisions about health care, and figure out what the hell we're going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan -- after all that's done, there's time to go back to pointlessly and endlessly fighting over Roe v. Wade.
|
Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.
Seconded. That guy is a Libertarian in the same way that Barack Obama is a Republican.
|
|
Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.Seconded. That guy is a Libertarian in the same way that Ron Paul is a Republican.
Fixed it for ya.
|
|
True. What I was talking about is the mentality that we must vote for a 'mainstream' party because they are the only party that can win. I understand we are not a parlimentary system, and those systems have their own problems. I am just tired of the 'waste your vote' justification that keeps the same two parties in power.But you are right Gary, until we ditch the 'winner takes all' mentality, we will have a two-party system.It's not the mentality, it's the way the Constitution is written. If your "third party" gets big enough to get a shot at actually winning, then the 3rd place group fragments and joins you or the 2nd place team, so that they might get into office next time.
The UK has a parliamentary system. Voting for the third party and lots of the smaller ones is still often viewed as a wasted vote as they are so far behind the big two. *sighs*
|
|
The UK has a parliamentary system. Voting for the third party and lots of the smaller ones is still often viewed as a wasted vote as they are so far behind the big two. *sighs*True. What I was talking about is the mentality that we must vote for a 'mainstream' party because they are the only party that can win. I understand we are not a parlimentary system, and those systems have their own problems. I am just tired of the 'waste your vote' justification that keeps the same two parties in power.But you are right Gary, until we ditch the 'winner takes all' mentality, we will have a two-party system.It's not the mentality, it's the way the Constitution is written. If your "third party" gets big enough to get a shot at actually winning, then the 3rd place group fragments and joins you or the 2nd place team, so that they might get into office next time.
I thought there were three big ones in the UK. The Labor party, the Tories, and one other who's name escapes me right now.
|
|
Fixed it for ya.Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.Seconded. That guy is a Libertarian in the same way that Ron Paul is a Republican.
Thanks. I'm terrible with analogies.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
When I see things like this It mkes me wonder if civil and meaningful discourse really is dead.When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.
I think Garrison Keillor is a lot like Glen Beck. If you aren't in agreement with his basic positions, it's really hard to draw the line between what's intended to be tongue-in-cheek and what's not.
And, for drawing my attention to a leftist pundit with a similar style to Beck, I must give a hearty thank you. I read the quote above, particularly the last sentence, and see it as mostly a tongue-in-cheek sly comment (especially since I hear Garrison Keillor's voice in my head when I read it, which has a certain whimsical tone to my ears, as opposed to an angry tone). I'm sure if I read a Glen Beck quote with a similar bent to it, I'd be offended and angry (and, I have no idea what he sounds like, so I'd probably miss the tone). But with Garrison Keillor, I say to myself "Aw, he doesn't really mean it, he's just being silly." I don't usually read his political commentary, because I find it too silly, non-substantive, and too over-the-top, but viewing it through that lense also makes it non-offensive. I hadn't really realized how terrible the things he says are if you're not in synch with his views. Thanks.
That said, The Writer's Almanac rocks.
|
First let's reduce the national debt, make some actual decisions about health care, and figure out what the hell we're going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan -- after all that's done, there's time to go back to pointlessly and endlessly fighting over Roe v. Wade.
I agree. While I, personally, find abortion to be reprehensible, I think that far too many people waste their time on it these days. Let's get some other stuff done first.
First let's reduce the national debt, make some actual decisions about health care, and figure out what the hell we're going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan -- after all that's done, there's time to go back to pointlessly and endlessly fighting over Roe v. Wade.I agree. While I, personally, find abortion to be reprehensible, I think that far too many people waste their time on it these days. Let's get some other stuff done first.
+1
One reason I have never affiliated myself with the Republican Party is that whenever they get into power they spend an awful lot of time trying to legislate morality. To my way of thinking this no more the government's function than creating a nanny state is.
I understand that some people find abortion terrible, I'm not really a big fan of it myself, but I am willing to let women make their own choice. It helps that I believe in reincarnation and I don't feel that anyone is being 'murdered' in the process. Also, the foofaraw about the abortion pill puzzles me, but then Catholic Church's stand on birth control also puzzles me. That and gay marraige. Why does this bother so many people? Yeah the courts stepped in, but courts DO that, one legitimate expression of the courts is to act as a counterweight against the 'tyranny of the majority'. It's been done with other subjects before. Quit wasting time, let gay folk find their 'persuit of happiness'. Why does their marraige diminish yours?
Also, I don't want to hear another long-winded debate about how we've drifted from our 'Christian' values. Read some of the early Founding Fathers, and you will see that although they for the most part believed in the Divine, they were dead set against any religious litmus test in government. I am no longer Christian, or even in the Abrahamic tradition, but I still manage to be a good person and help others as I go through life. I don't need to worship at the feet of a tortured Palestinian rabbi to do that.
Cutting taxes and reducing government WORKS. Rich people aren't evil, they're the ones who build the businesses that employ us. They fund the symphony, they fund the library, they donate to the charities that do a much better job of helping out people in distress than our bureaucratic monkeys in Washington could ever do.
So rich folk live nicer than you or me. Most of them also work friggin' HARD. Unless they are a Kennedyesque trust fund baby, your average millionaire puts in hellish hours at their work. Mostly because they are the founder/boss. I don't bedgrudge them the fancy cars or homes, they EARNED them. I could go out and do that too, if I was willing to sacrifice most of my time to the persuit of cash, I just don't feel the urge. Stealing their money through onerous taxation will make them HIDE their money, drying up the credit well even further and sticking a nice wooden sabot in the engine of commerce. Doesn't anyone remember the late Seventies term 'tax shelter?' Money squirreled away in foreign bank accounts to avoid taxation helps no one.
Let's find a way to make health care actually competitive like it should be without giving government control over it. Let's incentivise small business to create jobs by reducing their tax burdens. Let's focus on reducing our debt slavery to other countries by living within our means and cutting waste. Let's try to leave something in the kitty so our kids don't face crushing taxes to pay for our massive social engineering projects and to service the interest on our debt to foreign nations. And for heaven's sake stop proposing stupid legislation like the Defense Of Marraige Act.
/rant off
|
|
I thought there were three big ones in the UK. The Labor party, the Tories, and one other who's name escapes me right now.The UK has a parliamentary system. Voting for the third party and lots of the smaller ones is still often viewed as a wasted vote as they are so far behind the big two. *sighs*True. What I was talking about is the mentality that we must vote for a 'mainstream' party because they are the only party that can win. I understand we are not a parlimentary system, and those systems have their own problems. I am just tired of the 'waste your vote' justification that keeps the same two parties in power.But you are right Gary, until we ditch the 'winner takes all' mentality, we will have a two-party system.It's not the mentality, it's the way the Constitution is written. If your "third party" gets big enough to get a shot at actually winning, then the 3rd place group fragments and joins you or the 2nd place team, so that they might get into office next time.
You and half the British people. ;-)
They're the Liberal Democrats. I support them, mostly, but the two main parties each have more than twice the number of seats as the LibDems, so they're not going to get into power any time soon. Hence wasted vote. The nationalist parties do fairly well in their countries, but they make up a very small fraction of the whole parliament so don't make a significant contribution (except in the rare hung parliament [where there is no one party with an overall majority])
|
|
First let's reduce the national debt, make some actual decisions about health care, and figure out what the hell we're going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan -- after all that's done, there's time to go back to pointlessly and endlessly fighting over Roe v. Wade.I agree. While I, personally, find abortion to be reprehensible, I think that far too many people waste their time on it these days. Let's get some other stuff done first.+1
+2
|
|
I thought there were three big ones in the UK. The Labor party, the Tories, and one other who's name escapes me right now.You and half the British people. ;-)
I just remembered reading about President Obama meeting with leaders from three different parties on his last trip to the U.K. I'm sure a lot aout the politics in the U.K. has changed since I as living there, clear back when John Major was P.M.
|
|
When I see things like this It mkes me wonder if civil and meaningful discourse really is dead.When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.I think Garrison Keillor is a lot like Glen Beck. If you aren't in agreement with his basic positions, it's really hard to draw the line between what's intended to be tongue-in-cheek and what's not.
And, for drawing my attention to a leftist pundit with a similar style to Beck, I must give a hearty thank you. I read the quote above, particularly the last sentence, and see it as mostly a tongue-in-cheek sly comment (especially since I hear Garrison Keillor's voice in my head when I read it, which has a certain whimsical tone to my ears, as opposed to an angry tone). I'm sure if I read a Glen Beck quote with a similar bent to it, I'd be offended and angry (and, I have no idea what he sounds like, so I'd probably miss the tone). But with Garrison Keillor, I say to myself "Aw, he doesn't really mean it, he's just being silly." I don't usually read his political commentary, because I find it too silly, non-substantive, and too over-the-top, but viewing it through that lense also makes it non-offensive. I hadn't really realized how terrible the things he says are if you're not in synch with...
I agree with the basic premise of your satement. Keillor is best known as a humorist adthis is most likely an attempt at humor gon bad. I think the thing that troubles me most about it is that if someone like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh had said something like this about Democrats there would be discussion about it on CNN and MSNBC. They would disect it, analyze it, talk about what hate mongers they are, and eventually pronounce that this is what the Republican Party is all about, cutting off health care to their political opponents. However, I monitered both CNN and MSNBC and neothr network talked about the editorial at all. Neither did Fox News for that matter, despite the accuations of pro-Republican bias. That is the most disturbing part of this whole story, is that there is a dedicated effort to pick apart every little thing that conservative opinionists say, from groups like Media matters for America but the same outlandish things said by liberal opinionists, even if meant in a humorous way, is basically ignored in any organized fashion.
Polarized glasses.
Cutting taxes and reducing government WORKS. Rich people aren't evil, they're the ones who build the businesses that employ us. They fund the symphony, they fund the library, they donate to the charities that do a much better job of helping out people in distress than our bureaucratic monkeys in Washington could ever do.
So rich folk live nicer than you or me. Most of them also work friggin' HARD. Unless they are a Kennedyesque trust fund baby, your average millionaire puts in hellish hours at their work. Mostly because they are the founder/boss. I don't bedgrudge them the fancy cars or homes, they EARNED them. I could go out and do that too, if I was willing to sacrifice most of my time to the persuit of cash, I just don't feel the urge. Stealing their money through onerous taxation will make them HIDE their money, drying up the credit well even further and sticking a nice wooden sabot in the engine of commerce. Doesn't anyone remember the late Seventies term 'tax shelter?' Money squirreled away in foreign bank accounts to avoid taxation helps no one.
Let's find a way to make health care actually competitive like it should be without giving government control over it. Let's incentivise small business to create jobs by reducing their tax burdens. Let's focus on reducing our debt slavery to other countries by living within our means and cutting waste. Let's try to leave something in the kitty so our kids don't face crushing taxes to pay for our massive social engineering projects and to service the interest on our debt to foreign nations. And for heaven's sake stop proposing stupid legislation like the Defense Of Marraige Act.
Explain the past two presidential terms, with respect to taxes and government size. Numerous tax cuts(at least two, I believe) were approved, and while there was a nice mellow high for a while, there was a significant financial crash towards the end of said administration. In terms of government size, funds for my program from the government(which I cannot describe due to that DAMN NDA AGREEMENT!) dried up considerably as the government shrank down in size on a local level, as did the donations from the wealthy you lionized. Considering they were happier with their lower tax rate, donations should have poured in. Offshore banking remained as popular then as it ever was. And why is everyone who is a trust fund baby automatically considered a Kennedy(in the mildly negative sense) while those who "earned their money" are considered bootstrapping(in the mildly positive sense)? Not to point fingers here, but it's a bit of a stereotype, just as onerous as assuming the rich are naturally Mr. Burns-esque evil. Not that I think this mind you. I worked in a bank for several years with many people who make more money than I will see in a lifetime, and I discovered that they were indeed just as human as any of us, despite stereotypes I encountered growing up. Moreover, why is any government action, growth or development on any level automatically considered suspect? If stereotypes are going to be removed, they should be removed unilaterally.
No government takeover of healthcare is fine, but the only ones who seem to feel this is even a remote possiblity are the ones who are against the current framework of proposed and very much in favor of Tort reform and the ability to carry insurance across state lines(or indeed, wherever one ends up located physically in life). I've yet to see any convincing arguments on how these two things will solve all healthcare's problems and give us bigger genitals in the bargain beyond the occasional "trust me!!!". Not to be rude, but what do you consider "actually competitive"? Many of the ideas proposed by the government in this venue sounded good- would having government guidelines and an independent organization running it work for you?
Reducing debt slavery and saving our children are all well and good, but consider this- aren't we all currently paying for various debts accrued before we were born? We are currently facing economic hardship, that's DEFINITELY true, but our children(and their children) can live lifestyle similar to ones that we live now- after all, we're doing it right now, aren't we? What would stop them that couldn't theoritically stop us(i.e. countries calling in debts owed right frakking NOW, etc.). I ask because although I am Brooklyn-born and bred, I have lived in other parts of the country, usually at bad times for the area. I remember the stock market crash in '89(or was it '88? I can't remember!!!), and I lived in Sacramento, CA when there was a very real fear that the Japanese were literally going to buy the state(or parts of it). There was a lot of fear mongering mixed in with some very valid points, most of them aimed at children or simply "the next generation." Is this not more of the same?
Explain the past two presidential terms, with respect to taxes and government size. Numerous tax cuts(at least two, I believe) were approved, and while there was a nice mellow high for a while, there was a significant financial crash towards the end of said administration. In terms of government size, funds for my program from the government(which I cannot describe due to that DAMN NDA AGREEMENT!) dried up considerably as the government shrank down in size on a local level, as did the donations from the wealthy you lionized. Considering they were happier with their lower tax rate, donations should have poured in.
The Bush administration had no cred in taxes and/or government size. I don't know why your program shrank, but I know the recent financial crisis was driven by excesses on both sides, both high-level corporate shenanigans and govermental programs gone awry. The rich who are hurting now are those who invested trustingly with these huge 'too big to fail' investment firms and saw their earnings evaporate. At the same time they are now worried about the talk of special taxes on them to fund these new mandates.
Offshore banking remained as popular then as it ever was. And why is everyone who is a trust fund baby automatically considered a Kennedy(in the mildly negative sense) while those who "earned their money" are considered bootstrapping(in the mildly positive sense)? Not to point fingers here, but it's a bit of a stereotype, just as onerous as assuming the rich are naturally Mr. Burns-esque evil.
Sorry. Being on Cape Cod I have a natural dislike for the Kennedys. It was unfair, and many trust-fund folks do help with charities. But the rich people I know are the 'working' rich people, and they are the ones who donate that I've dealt with. Yes I am acting on anecdotal information, I make no apologies for that.
Not that I think this mind you. I worked in a bank for several years with many people who make more money than I will see in a lifetime, and I discovered that they were indeed just as human as any of us, despite stereotypes I encountered growing up. Moreover, why is any government action, growth or development on any level automatically considered suspect? If stereotypes are going to be removed, they should be removed unilaterally.
I don't think that government is automatically suspect. I just get nervous when I see massive spending like the TARP (which is squarely Bush's fault) or the stimulus package (Obama). Government is a neccesity, I'm not an anarchist. I just don't like government when it blows up beyond any abilty to pay for itself.
No government takeover of healthcare is fine, but the only ones who seem to feel this is even a remote possiblity are the ones who are against the current framework of proposed and very much in favor of Tort reform and the ability to carry insurance across state lines(or indeed, wherever one ends up located physically in life). I've yet to see any convincing arguments on how these two things will solve all healthcare's problems and give us bigger genitals in the bargain beyond the occasional "trust me!!!". Not to be rude, but what do you consider "actually competitive"? Many of the ideas proposed by the government in this venue sounded good- would having government guidelines and an independent organization running it work for you?
Yes, I've advocated the 'gang of six' proposal of goverment seed money being used to fund non-profit insurance collectives. I don't think healthcare should be a profit-driven venture, but neither do I feel that we the taxpayer should be put on the hook for the bill. I'd rather have an independent insurance pool member-run that could function more competitively nationwide. Who knows, we might actually get some of that seed money back one day.
Reducing debt slavery and saving our children are all well and good, but consider this- aren't we all currently paying for various debts accrued before we were born? We are currently facing economic hardship, that's DEFINITELY true, but our children(and their children) can live lifestyle similar to ones that we live now- after all, we're doing it right now, aren't we? What would stop them that couldn't theoritically stop us(i.e. countries calling in debts owed right frakking NOW, etc.). I ask because although I am Brooklyn-born and bred, I have lived in other parts of the country, usually at bad times for the area. I remember the stock market crash in '89(or was it '88? I can't remember!!!), and I lived in Sacramento, CA when there was a very real fear that the Japanese were literally going to buy the state(or parts of it). There was a lot of fear mongering mixed in with some very valid points, most of them aimed at children or simply "the next generation." Is this not more of the same?
October 1987 actually. We are paying for debts accrued, the problem is that over the past few decades we have been selling our debt, which other folks have been buying, such as the Peoples' Republic of China. While debt obligations are obviously different between nations than individuals, take a look at how we tiptoe around China diplomatically. They don't have to call in their T bills, all they have to say is "Gee whiz, those T bills don't look as lucrative as they used to. We're not buying anymore unless perhaps you do X. X being any number of things. If they were truly mad at us they could always sell off some of our debt, crashing the value and damaging us that way. Being in someone's debt makes you vulnerable to all sorts of things. Also, when we can't interest other nations into buying our debt, then there is only one source for increased governmental income: Us.
*sigh* anyways, me and my big mouth has opened up another can of worms. I have got to stop pontificating politically. Back to my PbPs.
You have not opened a can of worms, you have removed the scales from the eyes of those who might have misunderstood you! Don't be afraid to put forth an eloquent, well considered thought even if others disagree!
|
|
Proof Obama is a Sith Lord.
Proof that a poodle can't be a ninja. :)
|
|
Proof Obama is a Sith Lord.
I know poodles are colourblind, but that's a blue lightsaber. As well as being from the planet Krypton, Obama is a Jedi!
Proof that a poodle can't be a ninja.
You got me there.
Proof Obama is a Sith Lord.I know poodles are colourblind, but that's a blue lightsaber. As well as being from the planet Krypton, Obama is a Jedi!
The look on his wife's face is exactly the same as on my wife's face when I did the same thing- with a BETTER lightsaber(You'd think the POTUS could have one of the cooler light up ones that NY Jedi use...sheesh!)
You have not opened a can of worms, you have removed the scales from the eyes of those who might have misunderstood you! Don't be afraid to put forth an eloquent, well considered thought even if others disagree!
Thank you for that FDM. I am sorry if I sounded peevish, just lately debate has often devolved into insults, and despite my love for political debate, I am not a fan of what passes for it between the two ideological extremes lately. You have been nothing but considerate, and my apologies if it seemed like I was discounting that. I really shouldn't post politics here, but I always fail my Will save :P
|
|
Good column about the state of American politics.
Although, one should note that Mr. Friedman was not writing articles like this a few years ago when books, movies, and rap songs were being written about assassinating President Bush. And a few crazy people tried to act on that back then, just like may happen today. The fact of the matter is that there is always some nut case trying to assassinate the President, regardless of who it is. Remember when some nut tried to crash a plane into the White House during the Clinton years? It's not a new thing.